Through the course of my practice it is becoming clearer to me how thoughts and ideas arise, the relationship of cause and effect.
I am curious from seeing this in practice (as basic as the understanding I have is) as to what the position of free will is?
Also If all things arise because of their causes which we inevitably follow round and around without being able to alter our path (when ignorant of causes) what does this make the Dhamma? It seems like the Dhamma (and I suppose specifically Sati) is like something outside of this cycle - bolt cutters to break the chains and their links (I know this isn't the most apt simile but I hope you understand my point)
So is there free will? How does this affect the view or place of Viriya as well.
Apologies for the very unspecific and general way in which I have asked this question but I am having some problems verbalising it properly or formulating it clearly in my head :/
Dhamma and causality
Dhamma and causality
Here where a thousand
captains swore grand conquest
Tall grasses their monument.
captains swore grand conquest
Tall grasses their monument.
Re: Dhamma and causality
Consider that if we discuss free will then we must decide what it is that has freedom to do the willing....is it your "self"?
chownah
chownah
Re: Dhamma and causality
Hi Chownah.chownah wrote:Consider that if we discuss free will then we must decide what it is that has freedom to do the willing....is it your "self"?
chownah
Thats what I'm on about. If there are simply elements working in conjunction and reacting to causes (which seems to be the case) then it would seem that there is no Free Will at all, there is only an ongoing cycle of dhammas arising and ceasing. This means, to me at least, that our progression or potential to realise the Truth and see things for how they are is dependant not on how skillfully we practice (since skill itself is under no ones control but the factors which allow it to arise) but dependant on impersonal factors and conditions of which there is no way to alter unless its a natural change over time. This then also seems to devalue Viriya.
I know all of this seems silly really. I mean it's not really going to affect me really if I know one way or the other, I will still continue my Dhamma practice, and that even by saying things like, "it's dependant on impersonal factors" is pointless as this is kind of jhist of Dhamma we knew when we began but.... I'm still stuck on trying to get it out properly. It doesn't seem to be clear cut. Free Will or not? Maybe it's the view of the Self (the aggregates) and concsiouness that complicates things in asking this question - as you pointed out with, "...what it is that has freedom to do the willing....is it your "self"?"
I just have always had the belief that if one is to commit themselves to the path, to truly letting go then there is the potential of achieving liberation either in this life or at some point further. My emperical observations seem to lead me to thinking (currently) that it seems that effort (of the right kind) is useless until the factors which determine the result are ripe. We must continue to practice just in order to wait for it all to fall into place at some later date, that there is no Knowing or realisation to be had, simply a natural progression (or maybe regression) or change that then is the Extinguishing.
Here where a thousand
captains swore grand conquest
Tall grasses their monument.
captains swore grand conquest
Tall grasses their monument.
Re: Dhamma and causality
You are very right. If there is No Atta who posseses a choice, who can choose?chownah wrote:Consider that if we discuss free will then we must decide what it is that has freedom to do the willing....is it your "self"?
chownah
Re: Dhamma and causality
How it can affect you is if not-self and causality are wrongly grasped and you head down the path of nihilism and/or annihilationism.JackV wrote: I know all of this seems silly really. I mean it's not really going to affect me really if I know one way or the other, I will still continue my Dhamma practice, ...
The Buddha taught a middle way that avoided annihilationism (and eternalism). E.g. see:
http://dhammawheel.com/viewtopic.php?f= ... 69#p169966" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Mike
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Dhamma and causality
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Dhamma and causality
Hi JackV,
You ask an extremely important point. If it is conceded or understood that there is no Atta (or self, or substance, or uncaused element which can cause other things to happen) then what is the status of cetana, or intention?
You ask an extremely important point. If it is conceded or understood that there is no Atta (or self, or substance, or uncaused element which can cause other things to happen) then what is the status of cetana, or intention?
Re: Dhamma and causality
Or one can believe in ownership of will and thus develop Self View (even if one doesn't admit to that).mikenz66 wrote:How it can affect you is if not-self and causality are wrongly grasped and you head down the path of nihilism and/or annihilationism.JackV wrote: I know all of this seems silly really. I mean it's not really going to affect me really if I know one way or the other, I will still continue my Dhamma practice, ...
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Dhamma and causality
Greetings Alex,
Until you're an arahant, if you're going to own anything, it may as well be your actions... then you'll take accountability for them in accordance with Right Effort. Increasingly wholesome formations are the support for attaining the final cessation of all formations.
metta,
Retro.
Be careful here not to conflate self-view, which is a metaphysical proposition removed with (or prior to) stream-entry... with phenomena such as asmi-māna ('I am'-conceit, 'ego-conceit'), mama ('mine'), and the anusaya (tendency) towards false perception of self... all of which are finally broken only with arahantship.Alex123 wrote:Or one can believe in ownership of will and thus develop Self View (even if one doesn't admit to that).
Until you're an arahant, if you're going to own anything, it may as well be your actions... then you'll take accountability for them in accordance with Right Effort. Increasingly wholesome formations are the support for attaining the final cessation of all formations.
metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Dhamma and causality
Greeting Retro,
Just because one can have tendency to feel "I am" and "mine" until Arhatship, it doesn't mean that the will is really "mine". It is delusion that it is mine.
With best wishes,
Alex
Just because one can have tendency to feel "I am" and "mine" until Arhatship, it doesn't mean that the will is really "mine". It is delusion that it is mine.
With best wishes,
Alex
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Dhamma and causality
Greetings Alex,
Retro.
True, but since you are often falsely perceiving a self, it would be wrong at such time to believe that your false perception of self does not own that kamma. No amount of "self-denial" on your part is going to cause the Buddha to take back this teaching...Alex123 wrote:Just because one can have tendency to feel "I am" and "mine" until Arhatship, it doesn't mean that the will is really "mine". It is delusion that it is mine.
Metta,AN 5.57 wrote:"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...
"[This is a fact that] one should reflect on often, whether one is a woman or a man, lay or ordained...
"Now, based on what line of reasoning should one often reflect... that 'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'? There are beings who conduct themselves in a bad way in body... in speech... and in mind. But when they often reflect on that fact, that bad conduct in body, speech, and mind will either be entirely abandoned or grow weaker...
"A disciple of the noble ones considers this: 'I am not the only one who is owner of my actions, heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator; who — whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir. To the extent that there are beings — past and future, passing away and re-arising — all beings are the owner of their actions, heir to their actions, born of their actions, related through their actions, and live dependent on their actions. Whatever they do, for good or for evil, to that will they fall heir.' When he/she often reflects on this, the [factors of the] path take birth. He/she sticks with that path, develops it, cultivates it. As he/she sticks with that path, develops it and cultivates it, the fetters are abandoned, the obsessions destroyed."
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
Re: Dhamma and causality
But isn't implying that Kamma (as aggregates) can be "owned" and this controlled?retrofuturist wrote:No amount of "self-denial" on your part is going to cause the Buddha to take back this teaching...
Surely "'I am the owner of my actions (kamma)" is said conventionally and doesn't imply Atta that owns them. Kamma is not external action, it is internal.AN 5.57 wrote:"'I am the owner of my actions (kamma), heir to my actions, born of my actions, related through my actions, and have my actions as my arbitrator. Whatever I do, for good or for evil, to that will I fall heir'...
how does self-identification come about?"
"There is the case, friend Visakha, where an uninstructed, run-of-the-mill person — who has no regard for noble ones, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma; who has no regard for men of integrity, is not well-versed or disciplined in their Dhamma — assumes form (the body) to be the self, or the self as possessing form, or form as in the self, or the self as in form.
"He assumes feeling to be the self...
"He assumes perception to be the self...
"He assumes (mental) fabrications to be the self...
"He assumes consciousness to be the self, or the self as possessing consciousness, or consciousness as in the self, or the self as in consciousness. This is how self-identification comes about."
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka ... .than.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
- retrofuturist
- Posts: 27848
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 9:52 pm
- Location: Melbourne, Australia
- Contact:
Re: Dhamma and causality
Greetings Alex,
Stay ardently with the Buddha's words in AN 5.57, without retreating into the convenient and erroneous assumption that they're underpinned by false metaphysical views concerning atman.
Metta,
Retro.
Who said anything about "atta" owning anything? Not me. Not the Buddha...Alex123 wrote:Surely "'I am the owner of my actions (kamma)" is said conventionally and doesn't imply Atta that owns them. Kamma is not external action, it is internal.
Stay ardently with the Buddha's words in AN 5.57, without retreating into the convenient and erroneous assumption that they're underpinned by false metaphysical views concerning atman.
Metta,
Retro.
"Whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things."
- contemplans
- Posts: 152
- Joined: Sat Dec 17, 2011 9:10 pm
Re: Dhamma and causality
JackV,
Free will is the beginning of the path, in the sense that you are the owner of your actions, heir to your actions. You craft your experience. So the path is your effort. You need to make an effort and apply your desire to be free from stress and suffering. While you're creating karma, you are also creating an identity. The path is about making that more skillful on both ends. The two are very much intertwined. Once you reach a level of dropping karma, the self drops.
Free will is the beginning of the path, in the sense that you are the owner of your actions, heir to your actions. You craft your experience. So the path is your effort. You need to make an effort and apply your desire to be free from stress and suffering. While you're creating karma, you are also creating an identity. The path is about making that more skillful on both ends. The two are very much intertwined. Once you reach a level of dropping karma, the self drops.
- Cittasanto
- Posts: 6646
- Joined: Tue Dec 30, 2008 10:31 pm
- Location: Ellan Vannin
- Contact:
Re: Dhamma and causality
hi Jack
Upright Perspective (right view) is the forerunner and Upright Effort & mindfulness accompany this.
There is intentional action, we choose to go for some things and run from others, there is skilled and unskilled action, the four upright efforts are skilled action, the opposite of these is unskilled. it is your choice to pick up a burden or to put it down. no one forces you, it can seam like there is no choice, but each action is a volitional, we choose to do it based on causes and conditions pressent, be it part of the DO sequence directly, or other.JackV wrote:So is there free will? How does this affect the view or place of Viriya as well.
Upright Perspective (right view) is the forerunner and Upright Effort & mindfulness accompany this.
Blog, Suttas, Aj Chah, Facebook.
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill
He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them.
But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion …
...
He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them … he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.
John Stuart Mill